robsker

But Dylan, how do you know the evaluation the coaches have of a player? The coaches do not report their evaluation formally in any quantitative manner nor do they, in general, articulate their evaluations even qualitatively. all we know is that the player was acceptable to the staff and the program acceptable to the player. For all we know, a given player may have been the #8 on the coaches list at that position --- but the first 7 went elsewhere. We have no idea where the coaches rank or rate these players (at least in the vast majority of situations). Sometimes we know where a player ranks among those seemingly interested... but even there it is not definitive. The "knack for finding talented players" you ascribe to the NU staff is not an unreasonable assignment to make. Implying that most other programs do not have that knack is likely an overstatement. What is seen here, and at many places, is that players develop at differing rate and early assessment is not always accurate and often players rise above their initial rankings. That is true at NU... but many other places too.

Your "upper-middle" is pretty inclusive if it includes the conference runner-up. Good point Mavric! true enough NU has ended conference runner up (behind Wisconsin by 55 pts!) formally... but OSU was ineligible and clearly ahead of NU that year too. But still, that was a # 3 in conference which was pretty good. Yet, my general statement is that over the recent years, NU is somewhere between #3 and #6 in the conference more often than not. And that is upper middle... I suppose hedging towards the upper more than the middle (but not by much)

No argument was posited at all. I did not attempt a quantitative correlation between recruiting ranking and seasons ending ranking. I simply said that NU is not a top 20 program at present --- at least as measured by season's ending rankings --- when measured over the past 10 year window. I also said, generally recent recruiting ratings and season's ending rankings are fairly comparable. WRT the glory years of 1970-1999 NU was a top 5 overall program (based on season rankings) and recruited well too... but not a top 5 recruiting program... so I agree. NU played in that period above what recruiting rankings would have predicted. It should be noted however that NU did recruit well in that window (albeit not top 5)

You need to show that the correlation holds when NU is in the top 20. As in NU has top 20 recruiting classes when NU is ranked in the top 20 and vice versa. Otherwise you're not making a point but just pointing out stuff. Actually that was precisely my point. The data is not sufficient to make concrete defensible correlations that can lead to a "point" that is anywhere near definitive. One is left only with broad impressions --- no correlation between recruiting class and final ranking was attempted. All one can do is say, generally, that NU's recruiting rankings in the broadest sense over the recent years is relatively speaking about where season ending team ranking resides. Interestingly, when one looks at NU's glory years --- say 1970 - 1999 --- the season ending rankings tended to be higher than the recruiting ratings (though make no mistake, NU recruited well). Seemingly... and again only a broad generalism can be made --- NU performed on the field better than (and at times quite a bit better than) recruiting rankings predicted. That seemingly is not the case now.

Professional football coaches (if by this you mean NFL coaches) do not analyze players transitioning from High School to college at all. There is no metric established by these professional football coaches whatsoever. If you mean the head coaches at the colleges being the best to measure the quality of players available --- that is true. however, the coaches do not rate players at all... not with a metric that is reported. Realize that the college coaches do not sign the best players that they evaluate (they would if they could, but they must compete for those players). Thus, the players in a specific recruiting class are not those the coaching staff rated the best --- it is instead that grouping of players willing to come numbered among those the coaches were willing to accept. I would guess that most coaches would rate players not wildly differently than the composite of the services (at least generally). Do you think Bo rated any of the RB's NU will sign in this class above Leonard Fournette? Of course not... he offered Fournette and could not get him. He offered a bunch of RB's in hopes of getting the best he could... and like every other coach was forced to settle with what he could get. This class is not so much a function of those that the NU staff thought were best --- but rather it reflects the best they could get. This is true everywhere (not even Alabama has a class the coaches chose --- they too took the class they could get... which probably reflects more what they hoped for than other programs, but still...)

The reason you are not seeing anything to be excited about, is because you are looking through a magnifying glass set at one specific focal length focused on the final ranking of the 2014 class only, unable to see big picture and smaller details. Tell me - if the staff and administration has been making moves to improve in this area, say, over the last three months, how would that impact our results, especially for the 2014 class, which has been in progress since 350+ days ago? My guess is that it would result in the class finishing strongly, which it seems it has. I would also wager a guess that it would result in next year's class being off to a better start than any previous years'. It seems like that is the case also. I see plenty of reason to be excited. So do plenty of other people. I'll kindly submit that the reason you can't is because of you - not because of the state of things. But, either way, to answer your question with two examples, we're hiring for new non-coach full-time recruiting administrative positions, and also have as many as four coaches flying across the country on private planes at one time. Neither have existed before. I did not merely look at the 2014 recruiting class rankings --- I looked at the past 6 years of classes and the last six years of season ending team rankings (both clearly involved in my previous post). My contention is that nothing in terms of those metrics has much changed. The notion of having 4 coaches flying around being new is fairly encouraging. So too is the start of the next class. That said, NU has had encouraging starts and finishes to classes before. My point is there is little to nothing that sets this point in time at NU particularly apart from or distinct from the immediate past. We as fans tend to project --- because we want things to improve, in those periods of time where there is nothing to measure one way or another --- we project our desire onto (in this case) the incoming recruits and "rank" them high in our minds and assume them really good because we want them to be good. We really do not know how good they will be. We only know that "expert" rankings (not wildly accurate but, at least, the most comprehensive guesses out there) rank this class in the upper-middle of the conference. That does not line up with what we as fans "project" for these kids. About all that can be said is this class lines up at this point by the measures available to be fairly comparable to past classes. The recruiting approach or methods seemingly have changed --- good. Lets hope, over time, it bears fruit. The beginning people in the next class are ranked quite high. So... that is encouraging.

looking at the data in this thread re: where numerically NU has finished the season in the rankings vs. the recruiting rankings one can only give a loose assessment --- nothing overly detailed can be concluded. The loose assessment is this... of late (past 6 years or so) generally NU recruits outside the nations top 20 and generally NU finishes the season ranked below #20 as well. NU is not a top 20 program any longer --- if say a 10 year window of assessment is in view. Of course, historically NU is a top 5 program (if the window of assessment extends to the last 50 years). But currently, NU is outside the top 20 looking in --- both in recruiting and in on-field performance.

I don't want to be Ohio State, as these guys have said we have done a great job of finishing up this class and starting up the next. Nebraska is not Ohio State and never will be and that's fine with me, this staff is starting to make moves and i'm excited. What moves are being made by the NU staff that are starting to be manifest. Most years here recently NU has recruited in the upper-middle of the conference pack and finished the season in the upper-middle of the conference pack. This recruiting class is again upper-middle of the conference --- and NU finished again upper-middle of the conference. How is anything changing? This seems to be the same ol' same ol' again. I see nothing to be excited about. It seems quite status qua. There is no reason to view this recruiting class as being very different from the typical Pelini NU class. In what way is this staff "starting to make moves"?

On what basis can you claim that this is not the 5th or 6th best class in the league? Have you analyzed, in detail every commit of every team looking at who they will sign and what offers they had... and then from that make your assessment? The services come closet to doing that of anyone and taken in composite they give the best initial assessment of what the respective classes look like and how they compare. This NU class looks OK. It is about #30-35 or so nationally. It is not one of Bo's better classes but not his worst. And yes, it is somewhere towards the middle of the conference. All of that is based upon the assessment of people who do these kind of evaluations for a living. Might the class end up much better than predicted? Sure. But for now, just based upon educated guesses... it appears to be merely an OK class.

any prediction that varies much from the past few years seems to be unwarranted. To predict a 2 loss season is overly optimistic. To pick a 6 loss season is overly pessimistic. I'd expect again a 4 loss season w/o challenging for any sort of championship. I'd expect again the now typical NU end of season ranking --- somewhere between #21 and #35 nationally. Same as the last few years. Upper middle of the conference.

this one does hurt. This recruiting class is low on guys who look as though they can be difference makers. Clinkscales looked like one of the few. That said, one never knows when it comes to recruiting --- sometimes less heralded guys turn out and more heralded guys do not. It looks now as though the NU class will be ranked about 6th or so in the conference and somewhere around #40 nationally. There is time though still... so maybe NU finishes strong. At the moment the class looks to be below recent classes. Lets hope for a good finish.

We could very easily finish 3rd in the west and be 10-2. So you're saying a 10-2 record with 2 close losses is reason enough to fire Bo? Sounds reasonable. I guess. It seems very unlikely that a 10-2 record would be third best in the west. I'd think 10-2 would win the west. But... I do not see the Huskers being 10-2 either.

Athlon has predicted that the B1G West next year will be won by Wisconsin and that 2nd place will go to Iowa. They have Wisconsin behind OSU and behind MSU in the conference. They site the return of but 1 out of 5 OL and 1 of 4 DB's as issues for the Huskers and imply that the QB situation is not a strength either. That said, they say the Huskers are not far behind Iowa or Wisconsin. Seems reasonable to me... though I'd like to think the Huskers are better than Iowa... or, at least their equal. But... scoreboard counts and Iowa curb-stomped the Huskers last year. Wisconsin has toyed with NU too. So, the prediction is pretty reasonable. Still... I wish NU had a brighter outlook. We will see how it plays out.

Warren sounds like a great choice on paper. he is experienced as a secondary coach --- has had great success there. he has experience as a DC too. And his military background probably (one one think) means he is disciplined, demanding and has a good sense of authoritarian presence. All these things make it appear (on paper --- which is all we have now) to make this a promising hire. Well done Bo... you did not go with an inexperienced buddy who was not qualified. This guy is DOUBTLESS well qualified. Of course, I hope he does very well... and anticipate that he will.

Why do you think next years offense will be so good? I thought the offense this season was decent approaching pretty good. Why would the offense improve dramatically over last year? I can see the O being pretty good approaching good (or, in a best case scenario, good). But being very good or great seems a huge, huge stretch. What do you see that so inclines you to think the NU offense in 2014 will be great (or am I only assuming that you think the NU O will be great)?

I like this and USU has done well with the talent they have This guy could be a great hire. Hes "on the come" big time. He will be getting a lot of looks at big time programs very soon. We may want to get to him first. a candidate like this seems very, very appealing. Experience. Demonstrated success elsewhere. This is the type of guy NU needs.

NU should consider only candidates who have at least several (ideally more) years elsewhere as a DB coach and whose record there shows demonstrated excellence. No one w/o at least 2-3 years experience elsewhere as a DB coach should even score an interview. Anything less than this is yet another poor hiring process. Whenever Bo hires someone it makes me anxious... his track record in assistant hiring is not at all good (some hits... but mostly misses).

this does make it somewhat likely perhaps. Not sure NU deserves to be ranked... but they may sneak in.

Regarding TA... typically the greatest improvement in a player is between year 1 and year 2 as a starter --- he should improve a good deal (as mentioned earlier) he needs to get coached up --- will have to go outside like Martinez to so so... no one on the NU staff will be of much help he did look much faster today than he did all season --- that is encouraging he could be decent next year --- or, if Stanton beats him out we would have a decent back-up in TA --- the competition will be good for him so... while there is nothing to be overly excited about... there is little to worry about either. TA has no attributes that stand out as particularly promising nor does he have any attributes particularly problematic either... he seems serviceable --- then again, it is quite likely he will improve (hopefully a great deal)

We learned that Georgia was very giving --- thanks for the turnovers, the 5 dropped passes and the amazing decision not to take the points on the field goal --- thank you Dawgs We learned that the NU defense is probably not going to be a liability next season (though had inklings earlier that this might be the case)... not a strength either... but not a liability (unless the new secondary struggles) We learned that the NU Offense will likely struggle some against good defenses next year --- they were OK this year... likely OK next year Final analysis... the Huskers played this game at a 5 on a scale of 10 --- but fortunately for us, Georgia played at a 3.5 on that same scale. But NU did show heart and grit and that was nice to see.

This is all true except the part about no conference coming close. The ACC is actually equal if not better. If one measures undergraduate admissions and the like, the ACC is pretty close. But as major research institutions in terms of research funding... it is not even close. The B1G is dramatically superior.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school. Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school. Considered by whom? Wisconsin is a public Ivy League school? PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa? Utterly ridiculous. Northwestern has that reputation and that's it. Wisconsin is one of the top 5-7 public research institutions in the United States. It is a research juggernaut. Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Minnesota are also absolute powerhouses in academic research. The B1G is a an extraordinary academic conference --- no other conference (of major sports prominence) is even close.

Takodas point that bowl assignments have a great deal of $ driven aspects to them is well taken. I agree. Oddly, because NU has a fan base that is so faithful and so many fans all over and fans willing to travel... NU is always more attractive to bowl officials than their record warrants. That is, NU routinely gets better bowl assignments than their record warrants and it is because bowl officials know that NU fans will spend a great deal of money and that is less true for many other fan bases. Sadly, and somewhat ironically, because we as a fan base are so faithful, we are (in part) responsible for NU being over matched in bowl game after bowl game. This year is a prime example.

How would NU fans respond to some poster on the KSU, Mississippi, Vanderbilt, Penn State, or Arizona boards having the temerity to have a poll regarding winning a NC? We would laugh and say that those programs are so far removed from a NC that it is an absurd question. Same here at NU. The question should be... will NU ever win a conference championship under Bo? That is a reasonable question... I think it unlikely that NU will ever win a conference championship under Bo... but it is not crazy for someone to think otherwise. But asking about a NC is crazy... NU is no closer to that than are the teams mentioned above --- and are so far removed from that level of play that the question is just absurd.

That MSU does not have the best defense in the country is certain --- the stats are skewed by playing weaklings week after week. That said, MSU has a really good defense (perhaps top 6/7 --- certainly top 10/12) and they are well coached. There exists a level of football out there that 6-8 teams pay at the transcends anything the B1G has to offer. It is really, really good that MSU took out OSU --- had they not, FSU would have rolled OSU by 28+ points. MSU is well coached and is a good team --- but not a legit Top 10 team --- they played no one except OSU who is as well a team that is legitimately outside of the Top 10. No one in the B1G is able to compete overly w/ an FSU, Alabama, Auburn, even the next tier w/ Oregon, Stanford-level teams. I expect Stanford to handle MSU easily. I would not be surprised if the B1G gets rolled in most of the bowls.